promethean75 wrote:what we are now experiencing is a derridaian state of the aporetic, an impasse generated from an unusual bewitchment of language... when language is forced out of its ordinary environment into the philosophical landscape. chances are, all of you are meaning the same thing... but using the signifiers (words) differently. i think we should take a break from this discussion for a while, collect our marbles, and come back to it later, refreshed and renewed, ready to enter again into the same linguistic entanglements.....

There really is no confusion if we define how we're using the words beforehand. Free will in regard to the free will/determinism debate means that a person could have done otherwise if we were to rewind the clock. Determinism means that we could not have done otherwise because there is only one choice that could be made at any given moment in time. Determinism does not mean, in the way it is correctly defined, that we necessarily must do anything that is prescribed by nature. It only means given our particular circumstances, we are compelled to choose what gives us greater satisfaction rendering all other choices an impossibility. Free will therefore is an illusion, although a convincing one.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

Meno_ wrote:"Good and evil are relative terms although most people would consider not being shot by a sniper to be good when compared to the evil of being shot."

Ok good and evil are relative nominally, but, as far as their connexion to how to choose between them demands more dynamic involvement with the sources and the outcome of determined effect of the outcome of the choice, and I think a lot of confusion may arise by the appearant rather then the structural understanding. Is this why sometimes we are condemned to be fated to make the wrong choices?

We don't always have all the information available to us to know how our choices will turn out in the short or long term. You can say we were fated to make the wrong choices but you can also say we were fated to make the right choices. Looking back in hindsight teaches us what works and what doesn't, which is how we grow.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Let's try it one more time. Above in reponse to what I bolded and underlined -- What does this tell you about him? -- I ask you if you think there is one or one obvious conclusion when you ask that question.

Questions like this are existential contraptions in my view. So, the answers are likely to be in turn. I'm certainly not arguing that what I think this makes you is that which all others ought to think in turn.

And, on this thread, the part where anything that we exchange here might be construed to be the only thing that either one of us ever could have chosen to post. Letting us both off the hook.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:And sure, there is all sorts of room for misunderstandings, but if we don't actually respond, when acting as if we are, these things cannot possibly be cleared up, even in those cases where it is possible.

Okay, but what is the likelihood of misunderstandings being cleared up when you flat out insist you will not even read the points that I make?

Karpel Tunnel wrote:You do write responses to my posts, but they are not responses to what I write, often.

In cases like this all we can do is point out particular instances of it. And then [over time] decide if our own rendition of it warrants moving on to others.

But there is in turn [in my view] that murky middle. The part where someone insist that others are not responding to their points when what they really mean is this: if someone were responding to their points they would be agreeing with them.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Let's try it one more time. Above in reponse to what I bolded and underlined -- What does this tell you about him? -- I ask you if you think there is one or one obvious conclusion when you ask that question.

Questions like this are existential contraptions in my view.

The question bolded above, my question, both?

So, the answers are likely to be in turn. I'm certainly not arguing that what I think this makes you is that which all others ought to think in turn.

So you were not saying, via the question, something like 'well, we see why this guy does this? ' Right? You were actually asking a question, or?

And, on this thread, the part where anything that we exchange here might be construed to be the only thing that either one of us ever could have chosen to post. Letting us both off the hook

Letting us both off the hook is pretty vague. We can still draw conclusions. For exmaple. You seem to know what it says about me that I said I would not read your response. I then wrote why I did that. You've now read that. Did it have any effect. Or do you still think you know why I wrote that. Did it affect the degree of your certainty?

It can seem as if we are not just determined in the moment, but as if nothing we do will affect each other. It seems like when I explain my motivations it has no effect on your certainty or conclusions. Determinism lets you off the hook, in the sense that you and I cannot but do what we do. But if you are unaffected by information, one could describe you as that kind of person. We can still be described.

And determinism does allow for change, in fact it claims it must take place. Not necessarily what changes or how fast.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:And sure, there is all sorts of room for misunderstandings, but if we don't actually respond, when acting as if we are, these things cannot possibly be cleared up, even in those cases where it is possible.

Okay, but what is the likelihood of misunderstandings being cleared up when you flat out insist you will not even read the points that I make?

As I have said. One of the reasons I find your posts frustrating is that you often do not seem to respond to what I write, to the points I make, and often shift the context as if what I wrote was, for example, my claiming to have solved the problem of conflicting goods. I wanted to try letting you know I would not respond, on the chance that this would shift the way you would respond.

I mean, whatever you think of me, I certainly hope that y ou'd agree that over the course of our communication, I have tried many times in many different ways to explain my thinking to you, to point out where I think you are misunderstanding or mischaracterizing me. Here you asked people to judge me by a much less used pattern and determine what I am like. I think I have a fine motivation for this latter choice. But it is as if I had not tried a wide range of approaches over a long period of time.

Hey, what's this guy like, look what he just did. Seems kinda facile to me.

In cases like this all we can do is point out particular instances of it. And then [over time] decide if our own rendition of it warrants moving on to others.

Agreed. In the past though you wouldn't even respond. You would call it psychobabble or serious philosophy or would call my dealing with concrete instances of our communicative interaction as not grounded and ask me to weigh in on abortion.

I pointed out that that is not as concrete since I am not dealing with that issue, but our communication is an act we have documented here, and is in fact an interaction we are the two parties involved.

I don't remember you ever admitting that I was right. Now you seem to get it.

But there is in turn [in my view] that murky middle. The part where someone insist that others are not responding to their points when what they really mean is this: if someone were responding to their points they would be agreeing with them.

Sure that's a possibility in human interactions. And following your own point above, it would have been good in all our communication if you had tried to demonstate how my wording seemed to indicate this added conclusion. But you would just label me that way. Or label a large section of a post as indication I assumed you would agree with me if you actually focused on what I wrote.

So ideas about what might happen get written as if they are the case. With disclaimers, but never with any argument for why you think it is true in this particular case.

I also have seen other people make similiar criticisms of your posts. Now of course we all know many even most people can be wrong. But I have no seen you ever actually try to get to the bottom of that criticism to see if there was any validity.

You called my entering into this discussion with peace girl my 'setting you straight' with the connotations that go along with that phrase. My sense was I saw where you were talking past each other. And, in fact, I believe you or perhaps it was peacegirl asked people to try to mediate. So I did.

Serendipper wrote:Right, but notwithstanding yet more beating around the bush, what is your subjective point of view concerning the obligations one has to a game he/she started?

What does it mean to "beat around the bush" with regard to questions this problematic?

IB: Note to others: What does this tell you about him? And he's done it before. He jumps into a thread, "sets me straight", and then abandons the discussion.SD: We were discussing earlier what obligations one has to discussions. How do you see it?IB: Again, on this thread, it's not how I see it, but whether the manner in which I think I see it [here and now] is but an inherent, necessary manifestation of the laws of nature unfolding only as they ever could have.SD: Well, assume it's not determined and working within that context, how would you see it?IB: What I assume in a world where we do have some measure of autonomy, is that "I" is embedded in the laws of nature in the either/or world. Here there are objective truths seemingly applicable to all of us. However, in the is/ought world of conflicting goods, "I" is still no less an "existential contraption". At least at the intersection of identity, value judgments and political power. Obligations here are predicated on any particular objective context construed from any particular subjective/subjunctive point of view.SD: Right, but notwithstanding yet more beating around the bush, what is your subjective point of view concerning the obligations one has to a game he/she started?IB: What does it mean to "beat around the bush" with regard to questions this problematic?

Jordan Peterson? Is that you? lol

All that word salad in avoidance of the question is what it means. My sympathies to the restaurant staff who must take your order lol. "My order? What would I order in an either/or/ought/is world of conflicting goods where "I" is embedded in deterministic laws of nature rooted in existential contraptions where I could only ever order what I was going to order anyway?"

Forget X and Y. Forget electrons. Bring this assessment down to earth by describing what you construe to be cause and effect with respect to human interactions.

Serendipper wrote: X and Y and electrons is bringing it down to earth. How much closer to earth can I get than electrons?

Exhibit an example that you think is down to earth and then I will shoehorn it into probable outcomes.

Well, the one I tend to focus on is abortion. It's literally a life and death issue that is well known to almost everyone.

Here there is cause and effect/correlation in the either/or world: life on earth---> human biology---> sex---> unwanted pregnancy---> abortion.

Where the electron will be is not predictable. Outcomes are not predictable. Rewind it and it will unfold differently.

Whereas cause and effect in the is/ought world is [in my view] predicated more on what I construe to be existential contraptions. And they are often considerably more subjective/subjunctive.

But: From my way of thinking, in a wholly determined world, this distinction is essentially an illusion.

Right.

But if you cannot grasp the distinction I do make here between the either/or and the is/ought worlds given some measure of human autonomy, we need to spend more time pursuing that. On another thread perhaps?

I get the difference, but I don't get why you keep saying it.

Rewind the universe 24 hours and assess whether today's news headlines might have been different in a wholly determined universe.

Serendipper wrote: The chance it would unfold the same is unfathomable.

Here and now I basically agree. Why? Becasue scientists/philosophers have yet to fathom the extent to which human autonomy is in fact an aspect of human interactions.

So, until they do fathom it, we have to take these discussions [over and again] into realm that encompasses [more or less] a world of words.

Well, they've exhaustively proven there are no local hidden variables determining outcomes, so either information can travel faster than light (ie can arrive before it left and see itself off) or there are no determining causes. Pick your favorite absurdity. And because it's so weird, it's the most substantiated fact in all of science.

It's just that matter evolving into life

Serendipper wrote: Wrong. Life cannot come from nonlife. Something from nothing is absurd.

Right, like beyond the "world of words" that is bursting at the seams with all the assumptions you make here, you can actually know this!!

How can you not know it?? If atoms are nonlife and you're made of nonlife, then you are nonlife... unless the pixie sprinkled some magic dust making you alive.

But as I recall on another thread I asked you [at least I think it was you] to take these suppositions to the hard guys delving into these relationships in the hard sciences. I believe you noted that you would attempt this and get back to me.

No that wasn't me. Sounds like KT.

Yes, I make the assumption that mindless matter evolved into mindful matter here on earth because both actually do exist side by side. And that's one possible explanation. Another is God.

The ceramic and fully-automatic models of the universe are both absurd.

on Earth evolving into human brains evolving into self-conscious minds is able to concoct and then sustain the illusion of free will.

Serendipper wrote: Freewill can only be realized in the context of things that are not free.

And how in a wholly determined universe is anything at all free?

If the universe is wholly determined, how could you possibly be aware of that? Determinism can only be realized in the context of freewill.

Instead [given my own assumptions] we have mindless matter on earth evolving into mindful matter able to in fact "choose" things that nature compels them to. But: are our choices really any different [for all practical purposes] from the choices made by animals further down the evolutionary chain? They choose almost entirely by "instinct". Our species however has encountered all manner of historical, cultural and experiential variables that come into play. The part where genes intertwine with memes.

How then is this to be understood?

Geese get pissed off, jealous, proud, egotistical, depressed, yet don't have the brains god gave a goose lol. It's possible that plants could experience emotions in ways we don't understand. Heck, it could be possible to piss of the earth. How far do you want to take it? All you are is chemicals; star dust shit.

Still: We can speculate about all of this until we are blue in the face. But what can we actually demonstrate is in fact true such that all rational men and women are obligated to believe it.

Serendipper wrote: The pertinent question is what can be demonstrated to irrational men and women such that they are obligated to believe it? Rational men and women are not the problem

Or the pertinent question might be that, if rational and irrational beliefs are all subsumed in the fact that beliefs themselves are wholly determined, what does it really mean to make this distinction at all?

If that were the case then you couldn't ask because you couldn't exist as anything more than a dumb machine.

Serendipper wrote: How does one demonstrate red to a blind man such that he is obligated to believe it?

And this is situated in the either/or world. One is blind or one is not blind. Something is construed as a legitimate demonstration here or it is not. Red might be conveyed to blind person as associated with heat or passion, blue with coolness and calm. The communication is always either more or less effective. But: in a wholly determined universe it is what it is. Period. It could never have been other than that.

Why are you so hungup on pre-determinism? It's contrary to science and contrary to common sense. It could never only have been other than that.

Going all the way back to the explanation for existence itself.

Serendipper wrote: Existence itself doesn't exist. Circular argument. Things exist in a context and existence has no context to exist in, but is essentially a synonym for relationship, which arises spontaneously when one thing is perceived to be different from another thing even though they are codependent and in fact the same thing.

Again: How on earth can you ever hope to demonstrate that this is in fact true for all rational/logical folks beyond merely asserting that it is something that you believe is true here and now "in your head"?

How do I demonstrate red to a blind man? If you can't see that existence isn't a thing that can exist, then I'm out of ideas of conveyance. I don't know what to do.

iambiguous wrote:Indeed, all behaviors would seem to be entirely obligatory on our part in a determined universe.

But: What determines how we behave? Isn't it how we think and feel?

But: if how we think and feel is in turn entirely determined, then [it would seem] anything that we come to realize that prompts us to be less inclined to blame is in turn but one more inherent, necessary component of nature unfolding only as it every could have.

That is exactly what peacegirl thinks is going to happen and he is glad about that.

Indeed, and she -- he? -- might argue in turn that this post of yours is exactly what could only have been posted in sustaining this thread. But that somehow it is important to note that you "chose" to post it. Even though there was never any possibility that you could have chosen not to.

No one forced/compelled you to. Other than the laws of nature compelling others not to compel/force you?

Glad. But only because she was never able to react in any other manner. Her "choice" to be glad is necessarily subsumed in the reality of nature unfolding only as it must. Given the manner in which I construe the meaning of determinism.

She agrees with all of the points that I make but she still "chooses" to back away from our exchange. And this makes sense to me only to the extent that she seems able to convince herself that I am in fact to blame for not agreeing with her. Really to blame because I should have "chosen" to agree with her.

It simply doesn't make any sense to me.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: And his telling people this, he thinks, might be part of those causes and effects which inevitably lead to people moving past blame.

Again, she thinks only that which she was ever able to think here. And in my view she has no way given that assumption to know what on earth the future will bring in the way of peaceful, prosperous and progressive policies here on earth.

Instead, she can avoid altogether dealing with my own understanding of human interactions [re dasein, conflicting goods and political economy in an autonomous is/ought world] by falling back on determinism. But a determinism that somehow predicts a brighter future only if others will finally come around to her and her author's way of thinking. As though they are still somehow to be blamed if they refuse to see the light.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

iambiguous wrote:Indeed, and she -- he? -- might argue in turn that this post of yours is exactly what could only have been posted in sustaining this thread. But that somehow it is important to note that you "chose" to post it. Even though there was never any possibility that you could have chosen not to.

agreed.

No one forced/compelled you to. Other than the laws of nature compelling others not to compel/force you?

And my internal nature. In other words not just external causes, but also internal ones, but still all utterly predetermined

Glad. But only because she was never able to react in any other manner. Her "choice" to be glad is necessarily subsumed in the reality of nature unfolding only as it must. Given the manner in which I construe the meaning of determinism.

Precisely. In that moment she could not have reacted in another manner. On another day, perhaps she would have been compelled to answer differently.

She agrees with all of the points that I make but she still "chooses" to back away from our exchange. And this makes sense to me only to the extent that she seems able to convince herself that I am in fact to blame for not agreeing with her. Really to blame because I should have "chosen" to agree with her

.That's the only possible interpretation?

Can't one be compelled by unsuccessfuly getting something across, or by it seeming over and over that the other person is not reading carefully - even if they cannot help but do that.

It seems to me you have a go to interpretation. You can't help that. But now when it is pointed out that there might be other possibilities, perhaps you will not have that same reaction, since information might change your mind. we'll see.

It simply doesn't make any sense to me.

I would think you can imagine a woman, say, who has had bad experiences with men, interpreting all advances in one way. If she had had a real trauma, or come from a very harsh subculture. She could over time learn that not all men will treat her the way she has been treated.

Perhaps what seems to you like the only possible reason he would back off, is not the only reason. It certainly seems to me there is a range of possibilities.

Again, she thinks only that which she was ever able to think here. And in my view she has no way given that assumption to know what on earth the future will bring in the way of peaceful, prosperous and progressive policies here on earth.

I really do understand the implications of determinism.

Sure, she might be wrong about what is coming. She might be correctly analyzing the trends. I haven't focused on that issue.

Instead, she can avoid altogether dealing with my own understanding of human interactions [re dasein, conflicting goods and political economy in an autonomous is/ought world] by falling back on determinism. But a determinism that somehow predicts a brighter future only if others will finally come around to her and her author's way of thinking. As though they are still somehow to be blamed if they refuse to see the light.

I question her optimism also. I question in turn your sense that her position must have blame. That seems habitual.

If someone backs off. If someone gets angry at you.

It means they think you should agree with them. That is you go to interpretation. I don't see it supported that that is the only possibility. I also don't see it supported that the future will be without blame.

What seems obvious to both of you as the only possibility seems like one of many.

peacegirl wrote:Free will therefore is an illusion, although a convincing one.

As-if fate being pre-written and all life pre-destined, is not an even more convincing and pervasive illusion?

I believe equating pre-destiny with determinism is a big problem because it presupposes that we can't change what has already been pre-destined to happen. This is like saying "I can't make things better" so what's the use of trying. We are agents of change, but only through one choice at a time. This agent or "I" that we call ourselves does not mean that we have free will and it also doesn't mean that our choices have already been made for us in advance of us making them. It is true, however, that looking back, we were predestined to make the choices we made.

I think iambiguous is confused on this issue. He makes a false dichotomy between the "I" that is embedded in the natural unfolding of matter, and the autonomous "I" that can make choices apart from the dictates of this natural unfolding. It's all about defining words correctly. No one seems concerned that the standard definition of determinism is misleading. Nature does not cause...we make choices based on our circumstances, and all of it takes place in the present. Each person's heredity, experiences, and environment are unique to them, therefore the alternatives presented and the choices made are different for each person, but one thing is certain: We give consent to the choices we make. No choice is made against our will (or without our consent) because, like Gandhi, we could die before choosing to do something we don't want to do.

Last edited by peacegirl on Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

iambiguous wrote:Before, during or after something happens. Before, during or after anything happens. What parts here [including human interactions] are not embedded in matter unfolding only as it ever could have in a wholly determined universe?

They are embedded, but they are contingent on antecedent events. IOW, the choice we make cannot be dictated until the choice is made. That would be a modal fallacy.

In typing these words [and not others] what is the difference between "I" being embedded in the laws of matter and "I" being "contingent on antecedent events" that are embedded in the laws of matter?

If the bottom line is "I could only have thought and felt what I do in choosing to type these words and you could only have thought amd felt what you do in reacting to them", what then is the substance of this distinction?

iambiguous wrote:What can we know about something, about anything in a wholly ordered universe that we were ever free not to know? or free to know in a different way?

peacegirl wrote: What we know and what we don't yet know is perfectly ordered. We were never free not to know or to know in a different way because there was no other way it could have been in a wholly determined universe.

My point exactly! If in fact that point is true.

But then somehow in making and sharing this same point, I don't grasp the implications of it "for all practical purposes" as you do. Even though I can only ever grasp what I was never not going to grasp.

iambiguous wrote:Hitler chose the Final Solution. That is a historical fact. But was this choice a historical fact only because he could never have not chosen it? That of course is what is at stake here. If everything the human brain as mindful matter chooses is always in sync necessarily with the laws of matter, then when folks blame Hitler for acting in an atrociously immoral manner, that too is just an inherent manifestation of a wholly determined universe.

And when some imagine that as having appalling implications for human interactions that too is just more dominoes toppling over as nature marches on.

peacegirl wrote: I don't like the domino example because we do get to choose (albeit unfreely) dominoes don't.

But how is your not liking this but another "choice" you could never have not made?

Again, with you it is always this precious choice. Something the overwhelming preponderence of mindless matter in the universe does not experience. But from the perspective of the autonomous aliens [and many determinists down here] it's always only really a "choice".

iambiguous wrote:But who perhaps is fooling themselves here about the nature of that consent, those choices? The "compatibilists" with their "psychological freedom" embedded in an ontologically determined world? Those like peacegirl who seem obsessed that no others force us to choose what nature compels us to choose? Like in not forcing us to choose others have freely chosen to do that!

peacegirl wrote: I'm not obsessed iambiguous. Nature does not prescribe behavior, which implies that we must choose what it dictates. Nature is not a dictator.

The surreal aspect of the exchange here is that in discussing "nature" -- nature as a whole -- we really don't know what to attribute to it. Nature may well just be. It actually prescribes or proscribes nothing because it is somehow encompassed in the entirety of existence itself. And we don't really have a clue as to how to explain that. At least not wholly.

But how do we not "choose" what the laws of matter/nature dictate in a wholly determined universe?

iambiguous wrote:Or, yes, yes, yes, it's me here. I'm just not getting what is crystal clear to others about the existential relationship between determinism, the human brain, the human mind and the choices it makes.

peacegirl wrote: You're making it more difficult than it actually is.

See? It happened again. On the one hand, we would both seem to agree that, given a determined universe, I could not not make it more difficult than it actually is.

And yet somehow in "choosing" to make it more difficult that in turn somehow makes me..."blameworthy"?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

promethean75 wrote:what we are now experiencing is a derridaian state of the aporetic, an impasse generated from an unusual bewitchment of language... when language is forced out of its ordinary environment into the philosophical landscape. chances are, all of you are meaning the same thing... but using the signifiers (words) differently. i think we should take a break from this discussion for a while, collect our marbles, and come back to it later, refreshed and renewed, ready to enter again into the same linguistic entanglements.....

This is probably true. But how on earth would someone [philosopher or not] go about demonstrating that it is.

Clearly, there are things we experience from day to day. There are things encountered by our senses. There are things we think we understand cognitively, intellectually.

But in any number of contexts what is there available to us to convey any of it but words? Words to broach something. Words to describe something. Words to assess something. Words to judge something.

But how closely [at any given time, in any given place] are we actually able to connect the dots between our words and our world? If I say, "I am sitting in my recliner in Baltimore typing these words on my HP laptop commuter", I would be able to demonstrate that to any number of people.

On the other hand, if I say "Baltimore is a terrible place to live" who could I demonstrate that to? How could I demonstrate that in fact Baltimore is a terrible place to live? What are the limitations of language here?

And then on this thread we have to come up with words able to demonstrate whether or not anything that we think, feel, say or do is embodied in some measure of autonomy. Where are the words for that?

Last edited by iambiguous on Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

iambiguous wrote:Before, during or after something happens. Before, during or after anything happens. What parts here [including human interactions] are not embedded in matter unfolding only as it ever could have in a wholly determined universe?

They are embedded, but they are contingent on antecedent events. IOW, the choice we make cannot be dictated until the choice is made. That would be a modal fallacy.

iambiguous wrote:In typing these words [and not others] what is the difference between "I" being embedded in the laws of matter and "I" being "contingent on antecedent events" that are embedded in the laws of matter?

Because your idea of all choices already being "embedded" in the natural unfolding of matter is a fatalistic position that seems to mean you are not making your own choices. It's the difference between: Necessarily, you must choose to eat eggs rather than cereal for breakfast because this has already been predetermined for you (which is a modal fallacy) rather than: You are compelled to CHOOSE (of your own accord or desire) the option that offers you the greater satisfaction at any given moment in time.

iambiguous wrote:If the bottom line is "I could only have thought and felt what I do in choosing to type these words and you could only have thought amd felt what you do in reacting to them", what then is the substance of this distinction?

It's how you are interpreting the meaning of determinism that is causing the issue. You are constantly implying that if determinism is true, you are given no choice. If you contemplated what you are going to do first today, you have already weighed different options. Once you make the choice based on the many pros and cons that all of us use to determine which choice is preferable, it could never have been otherwise. You don't get to omit choice because that would make a mockery out of contemplation.

iambiguous wrote:What can we know about something, about anything in a wholly ordered universe that we were ever free not to know? or free to know in a different way?

We do not have free will in a wholly ordered universe, but that does not mean nature has dictated what you must choose before you choose it.

peacegirl wrote: What we know and what we don't yet know is perfectly ordered. We were never free not to know or to know in a different way because there was no other way it could have been in a wholly determined universe.

iambiguous wrote:My point exactly! If in fact that point is true.

It IS true, so please stop saying IF in fact that point is true. It's just not true the way you describe it. I know for a fact that man's will is not free.

iambiguous wrote:But then somehow in making and sharing this same point, I don't grasp the implications of it "for all practical purposes" as you do. Even though I can only ever grasp what I was never not going to grasp.

You don't grasp the implications because it was never explained to you.

iambiguous wrote:Hitler chose the Final Solution. That is a historical fact. But was this choice a historical fact only because he could never have not chosen it? That of course is what is at stake here. If everything the human brain as mindful matter chooses is always in sync necessarily with the laws of matter, then when folks blame Hitler for acting in an atrociously immoral manner, that too is just an inherent manifestation of a wholly determined universe.

And when some imagine that as having appalling implications for human interactions that too is just more dominoes toppling over as nature marches on.

That doesn't make it any less exciting. Just knowing we are progressing toward a world of peace based on the understanding that man's will is not free, is a wonderful thing to know.

peacegirl wrote: I don't like the domino example because we do get to choose (albeit unfreely) dominoes don't.

iambiguous wrote:But how is your not liking this but another "choice" you could never have not made?

My choice to not like this is another choice that "I" could never have not made, but...it was not embedded in a decision that was already made in advance of my making it. Nothing has the power to cause a choice to occur (not the past, not nature, not my parents, not God) without MY CONSENT. It was made by ME based on my analysis of which alternative was the most preferable, in the direction of greater satisfaction. All anyone can do is try to give me different points of view, but I make the choice even if seconds later I regret having made that choice. IOW, you can't say God made me pull the trigger, or nature forced this on me; and you can't say this person caused me to shoot him because nothing on this earth can cause you to pull the trigger if you don't want to.

iambiguous wrote:Again, with you it is always this precious choice. Something the overwhelming preponderence of mindless matter in the universe does not experience. But from the perspective of the autonomous aliens [and many determinists down here] it's always only really a "choice".

Humans are not mindless matter. They are not just dominoes toppling over. Rocks don't have a choice. Trees don't have a choice. The ability to choose has been given to us because we are able to think through things. Having choice though does not mean we have a FREE choice.

iambiguous wrote:But who perhaps is fooling themselves here about the nature of that consent, those choices? The "compatibilists" with their "psychological freedom" embedded in an ontologically determined world? Those like peacegirl who seem obsessed that no others force us to choose what nature compels us to choose? Like in not forcing us to choose others have freely chosen to do that!

peacegirl wrote: I'm not obsessed iambiguous. Nature does not prescribe behavior, which implies that we must choose what it dictates. Nature is not a dictator.

iambiguous wrote:The surreal aspect of the exchange here is that in discussing "nature" -- nature as a whole -- we really don't know what to attribute to it. Nature may well just be. It actually prescribes or proscribes nothing because it is somehow encompassed in the entirety of existence itself. And we don't really have a clue as to how to explain that. At least not wholly.

But how do we not "choose" what the laws of matter/nature dictate in a wholly determined universe?

There is no shifting of gears. There is just a more accurate way of explaining what determinism really means. It does not remove anything that we hold dear. In fact, removing the impasse that has perplexed philosophers for centuries, we can now prevent war, crime, and conflicting goods. I know you don't believe me, and that's okay.

iambiguous wrote:Or, yes, yes, yes, it's me here. I'm just not getting what is crystal clear to others about the existential relationship between determinism, the human brain, the human mind and the choices it makes.

peacegirl wrote: You're making it more difficult than it actually is.

iambiguous wrote:See? It happened again. On the one hand, we would both seem to agree that, given a determined universe, I could not not make it more difficult than it actually is.

And I agree with you. If you can't help but repeat yourself because it satisfies you to answer this way, I'm not blaming you but we won't make any further progress.

iambiguous wrote:And yet somehow in "choosing" to make it more difficult that in turn somehow makes me..."blameworthy"?

No one is blaming you.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

Serendipper wrote:Right, but notwithstanding yet more beating around the bush, what is your subjective point of view concerning the obligations one has to a game he/she started?

What does it mean to "beat around the bush" with regard to questions this problematic?

IB: Note to others: What does this tell you about him? And he's done it before. He jumps into a thread, "sets me straight", and then abandons the discussion.SD: We were discussing earlier what obligations one has to discussions. How do you see it?IB: Again, on this thread, it's not how I see it, but whether the manner in which I think I see it [here and now] is but an inherent, necessary manifestation of the laws of nature unfolding only as they ever could have.SD: Well, assume it's not determined and working within that context, how would you see it?IB: What I assume in a world where we do have some measure of autonomy, is that "I" is embedded in the laws of nature in the either/or world. Here there are objective truths seemingly applicable to all of us. However, in the is/ought world of conflicting goods, "I" is still no less an "existential contraption". At least at the intersection of identity, value judgments and political power. Obligations here are predicated on any particular objective context construed from any particular subjective/subjunctive point of view.SD: Right, but notwithstanding yet more beating around the bush, what is your subjective point of view concerning the obligations one has to a game he/she started?IB: What does it mean to "beat around the bush" with regard to questions this problematic?

Jordan Peterson? Is that you? lol

All that word salad in avoidance of the question is what it means. My sympathies to the restaurant staff who must take your order lol. "My order? What would I order in an either/or/ought/is world of conflicting goods where "I" is embedded in deterministic laws of nature rooted in existential contraptions where I could only ever order what I was going to order anyway?"

So, I'm suppose to tell you what it means to be obligated -- subjectively obligated -- to "the game". Noting in turn what the bush is here and what beating around it means.

But since any meaning I might convey here is embedded in the existential contraption that is "I" pertaining to questions like that, I am already acknowledging that gap between "I" here and now and all that can be known about answering a question such as this given a complete understanding of existence itself.

Again, let's bring this all down to earth. What particular game in what particular context construed from what particular point of view? What might be the bush there and what might beating around it consist of?

Forget X and Y. Forget electrons. Bring this assessment down to earth by describing what you construe to be cause and effect with respect to human interactions.

Serendipper wrote: X and Y and electrons is bringing it down to earth. How much closer to earth can I get than electrons?

Exhibit an example that you think is down to earth and then I will shoehorn it into probable outcomes.

Well, the one I tend to focus on is abortion. It's literally a life and death issue that is well known to almost everyone.

Here there is cause and effect/correlation in the either/or world: life on earth---> human biology---> sex---> unwanted pregnancy---> abortion.

Where the electron will be is not predictable. Outcomes are not predictable. Rewind it and it will unfold differently.

Yes, and in a wholly determined universe all of these interactions unfold only as they ever could have. If time could be unwound hypothetically the same things would unfold over and over again. An "eternal recurrence" as it were.

Same with the subatomic particles here.

But: Configure human autonomy into this and how are all bets not off? In the is/ought world.

Whereas cause and effect in the is/ought world is [in my view] predicated more on what I construe to be existential contraptions. And they are often considerably more subjective/subjunctive.

But: From my way of thinking, in a wholly determined world, this distinction is essentially an illusion.

Serendipper wrote: Right.

So, here, what would the bush be and how might one beat around it?

But if you cannot grasp the distinction I do make here between the either/or and the is/ought worlds given some measure of human autonomy, we need to spend more time pursuing that. On another thread perhaps?

Serendipper wrote: I get the difference, but I don't get why you keep saying it.

Because, given human autonomy, beating around the bush regarding any particular set of conflicting goods in the is/ought world, can be explored in turn from conflicting moral and political perspectives.

People are said to be beating around the bush given conflicting assumptions regarding what that means in any particular context. Re abortion "the point" is said to be either the alleged "natural right" of the fetus to be born vs. the alleged "political right" of a women to chose abortion.

So, who exactly is beating around the bush here in arguing for or against the abortion of a particular unborn baby?

It's just that matter evolving into life

Serendipper wrote: Wrong. Life cannot come from nonlife. Something from nothing is absurd.

Right, like beyond the "world of words" that is bursting at the seams with all the assumptions you make here, you can actually know this!!

Serendipper wrote: How can you not know it?? If atoms are nonlife and you're made of nonlife, then you are nonlife... unless the pixie sprinkled some magic dust making you alive.

You just claim to know it. But how on earth would you actually demonstrate it such that neuroscientists, physicists, biologists etc., all concur that your own take on these relationships reflects the whole truth? Let alone how this assessment is "for all practical purposes" relevant in grasping why we choose the behaviors that we do from day to day in a universe that may or may not be wholly determined.

You claim things like "the ceramic and fully-automatic models of the universe are both absurd" as though the claim itself settles it.

Serendipper wrote: Freewill can only be realized in the context of things that are not free.

And how in a wholly determined universe is anything at all free?

Serendipper wrote: If the universe is wholly determined, how could you possibly be aware of that? Determinism can only be realized in the context of freewill.

That's the imponderable here for many. How can matter evolve into life evolving into consciousness aware of itself as matter evolving into consciousness aware of itself.

Or, for others, one of another rendition of mind/God evolving into matter evolving into consciousness becoming aware of itself as mind evolving into matter evolving into consciousness becoming aware of itself.

Come on, let's face it: If someone were actually able to demonstrate that they grasp the interactions here ontologically [teleologically?] they'd be on every news format around the globe.

"EXISTENCE ITSELF EXPLAINED BY CONSCIOUS MIND AND/OR MATTER"

Is that you, perhaps?

Instead [given my own assumptions] we have mindless matter on earth evolving into mindful matter able to in fact "choose" things that nature compels them to. But: are our choices really any different [for all practical purposes] from the choices made by animals further down the evolutionary chain? They choose almost entirely by "instinct". Our species however has encountered all manner of historical, cultural and experiential variables that come into play. The part where genes intertwine with memes.

How then is this to be understood?

Serendipper wrote: Geese get pissed off, jealous, proud, egotistical, depressed, yet don't have the brains god gave a goose lol. It's possible that plants could experience emotions in ways we don't understand. Heck, it could be possible to piss of the earth. How far do you want to take it? All you are is chemicals; star dust shit.

So, this is either something that you think you know and believe is true "in your head" "here and now", or it is something that you are fully capable of demonstrating that all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

That's all we have so far. And that assumes some level of autonomy.

Tell us what you think is true here, sure. By all means. But don't just expect us to accept that you thinking it is true need be as far as one goes.

Serendipper wrote: The pertinent question is what can be demonstrated to irrational men and women such that they are obligated to believe it? Rational men and women are not the problem

Or the pertinent question might be that, if rational and irrational beliefs are all subsumed in the fact that beliefs themselves are wholly determined, what does it really mean to make this distinction at all?

Serendipper wrote: If that were the case then you couldn't ask because you couldn't exist as anything more than a dumb machine.

If human brains/minds are just another manifestation of "the laws of matter" we might be thought of as nature's "smart machines". But when we think of ourselves as smart machines inventing "smart phones" we don't think that the phones themselves are calling the shots. Instead, some insist that unlike the phones we do choose consciously to do one thing rather than another. But what if that is all essentially an illusion? What if nature has evolve to the point where matter is able to think that it thinks freely of its own volition but in fact thinks only as it was ever able to think being wholly in sync with the "immutable laws of matter"?

Has anyone on Earth untangled all of this going back to the understanding of existence itself?

Sure, maybe. And maybe it's you. So, take your assessments here to those who think about these things for a living. See what they say about your own assumptions here. Then get back to us.

Serendipper wrote: How does one demonstrate red to a blind man such that he is obligated to believe it?

And this is situated in the either/or world. One is blind or one is not blind. Something is construed as a legitimate demonstration here or it is not. Red might be conveyed to blind person as associated with heat or passion, blue with coolness and calm. The communication is always either more or less effective. But: in a wholly determined universe it is what it is. Period. It could never have been other than that.

Serendipper wrote: Why are you so hungup on pre-determinism? It's contrary to science and contrary to common sense. It could never only have been other than that.

How on earth in a particular context is one to differentiate determinism from pre-determinism? How is this distinction related to the assumption some make that in a determined universe all matter [including mindful matter] interacts only as it was/does/ever will interact.

In other words...

Going all the way back to the explanation for existence itself.

Serendipper wrote: If you can't see that existence isn't a thing that can exist, then I'm out of ideas of conveyance. I don't know what to do.

This may well be the mother of all "general descriptions" regarding an explanation for existence. How exactly would you go about making a youtube video able to demonstrate that "existence isn't a thing that can exist"?

Illustrate this particular text please.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

promethean75 wrote:what we are now experiencing is a derridaian state of the aporetic, an impasse generated from an unusual bewitchment of language... when language is forced out of its ordinary environment into the philosophical landscape. chances are, all of you are meaning the same thing... but using the signifiers (words) differently. i think we should take a break from this discussion for a while, collect our marbles, and come back to it later, refreshed and renewed, ready to enter again into the same linguistic entanglements.....

This is probably true. But how on earth would someone [philosopher or not] go about demonstrating that it is.

I found this a fascinating exhange. I would guess that if I said something as abstract with a number of philosophical terms in it as promethean did, I would be told it was just abstract babbling. But here, since it matches - or seems to if it is correct - Iamb's positions, he says it is probably correct, no criticism of the widely sprayed vaguenesses. Saying something is probably correct has as much a burden of proof as saying something is correct. More than 50% less than 100%. Interesting.

Then we get to Iamb's question: how does a philosopher go about demonstrating this. Well, likely the same way both of you reached the conclusion. Would it work on all people? No. But then nothing does.

And then we get to Iamb in a burst of metaphysical confidence.....

Clearly, there are things we experience from day to day. There are things encountered by our senses. There are things we think we understand cognitively, intellectually.

The first two sentences contain a lot of metaphysical assumptions, contested ones, some implicit in the grammar. But when speaking to a like mind, he can just go ahead and state it as clear.

Yet in the context of....

As though infinitesimally tiny specks of existence like you and I can actually assert things like this as anything other than intellectual gibberish.

How can he be so clear on this? How can he be clear that our volume means that we cannot know things? All his doubt and confusion is generated by arguments based on his knowledge. He wil build up arguments based on X and Y and Z....and more? only to say that since we are specks we cannot know? Why mount an argument? Since all the pieces of the argument show the same hubris?

Why not simply be unconvinced?

Once you try to demostrate that we are mere infinitesmal specks, based on what he thinks are clearly metaphysical truths, you are building an argument on poison fruit.

And so repeating that we are small and so therefore stupid or confused - states, it would seem, larger organisms would not suffer - and telling other people that....

Is that how one ought to live?

Ought one tell other people that they are really tiny and can't really know or communicate things such as those communicated in these threads a good thing to do, if one thinks one cannot know such things? Why would one bother?

It would seem like caution would say: I have no idea if my metaphysical ideas are correct. I have no ideas if what promethean said is probably true. I have no idea if my skepticism and confusion are good things to try to spread. Perhaps I will do something else until I do know.

But without knowing if it is how one ought to live, he chooses to take action - or is compelled, but continues when this is pointed out. He tries to convince others. Why does he need to know how one ought to live, when he decides to influence others and convince them that they really don't know certain things despite having no idea if this is how one ought to live.

iambiguous wrote:Again, let's bring this all down to earth. What might be the bush there and what might beating around it consist of?

This is the bush:

IB: Note to others: What does this tell you about him? And he's done it before. He jumps into a thread, "sets me straight", and then abandons the discussion.SD: We were discussing earlier what obligations one has to discussions. How do you see it?

And here is the beating:

IB: Again, on this thread, it's not how I see it, but whether the manner in which I think I see it [here and now] is but an inherent, necessary manifestation of the laws of nature unfolding only as they ever could have.SD: Well, assume it's not determined and working within that context, how would you see it?IB: What I assume in a world where we do have some measure of autonomy, is that "I" is embedded in the laws of nature in the either/or world. Here there are objective truths seemingly applicable to all of us. However, in the is/ought world of conflicting goods, "I" is still no less an "existential contraption". At least at the intersection of identity, value judgments and political power. Obligations here are predicated on any particular objective context construed from any particular subjective/subjunctive point of view.SD: Right, but notwithstanding yet more beating around the bush, what is your subjective point of view concerning the obligations one has to a game he/she started?IB: What does it mean to "beat around the bush" with regard to questions this problematic?SD: All that word salad in avoidance of the question is what it means.IB: [more word salad to avoid answering question]

What particular game in what particular context construed from what particular point of view?

The one you had in mind when you said "Note to others: What does this tell you about him? And he's done it before. He jumps into a thread, "sets me straight", and then abandons the discussion."

Either you had something in mind or it was random drivel that coincidentally appeared meaningful. Right?

Forget X and Y. Forget electrons. Bring this assessment down to earth by describing what you construe to be cause and effect with respect to human interactions.

Serendipper wrote: X and Y and electrons is bringing it down to earth. How much closer to earth can I get than electrons?

Exhibit an example that you think is down to earth and then I will shoehorn it into probable outcomes.

Well, the one I tend to focus on is abortion. It's literally a life and death issue that is well known to almost everyone.

Here there is cause and effect/correlation in the either/or world: life on earth---> human biology---> sex---> unwanted pregnancy---> abortion.

Where the electron will be is not predictable. Outcomes are not predictable. Rewind it and it will unfold differently.

Yes, and in a wholly determined universe all of these interactions unfold only as they ever could have. If time could be unwound hypothetically the same things would unfold over and over again. An "eternal recurrence" as it were.

But that view has been disproven by scientific experimentation so exhaustively that it is the most substantiated point in all of science, yet you continue on and on and on, for months now, in stern refusal to recognize that. Rewind the universe and there is almost zero chance it could recur the same.

Whereas cause and effect in the is/ought world is [in my view] predicated more on what I construe to be existential contraptions. And they are often considerably more subjective/subjunctive.

But: From my way of thinking, in a wholly determined world, this distinction is essentially an illusion.

Serendipper wrote: Right.

So, here, what would the bush be and how might one beat around it?

In that context, there wouldn't be one. But that context doesn't exist. The real context is probabilistic.

But if you cannot grasp the distinction I do make here between the either/or and the is/ought worlds given some measure of human autonomy, we need to spend more time pursuing that. On another thread perhaps?

Serendipper wrote: I get the difference, but I don't get why you keep saying it.

Because, given human autonomy, beating around the bush regarding any particular set of conflicting goods in the is/ought world, can be explored in turn from conflicting moral and political perspectives.

People are said to be beating around the bush given conflicting assumptions regarding what that means in any particular context. Re abortion "the point" is said to be either the alleged "natural right" of the fetus to be born vs. the alleged "political right" of a women to chose abortion.

So, who exactly is beating around the bush here in arguing for or against the abortion of a particular unborn baby?

I was asking why you qualify words that don't need to be qualified. For instance, I don't address you as "Bipedal humanoid of masculine variety on the 3rd planet from the star located between spiral arms of the milky way galaxy known as Iambiguous", but I simply say "Iambiguous" and assume the rest is automatically known.

Beating around the bush is simply avoiding answering a question.

The woman has a natural right to choose abortion too. She could do it consciously or unconsciously, and both processes originate from the same cause.

It's just that matter evolving into life

Serendipper wrote: Wrong. Life cannot come from nonlife. Something from nothing is absurd.

Right, like beyond the "world of words" that is bursting at the seams with all the assumptions you make here, you can actually know this!!

Serendipper wrote: How can you not know it?? If atoms are nonlife and you're made of nonlife, then you are nonlife... unless the pixie sprinkled some magic dust making you alive.

You just claim to know it. But how on earth would you actually demonstrate it such that neuroscientists, physicists, biologists etc., all concur that your own take on these relationships reflects the whole truth? Let alone how this assessment is "for all practical purposes" relevant in grasping why we choose the behaviors that we do from day to day in a universe that may or may not be wholly determined.

You claim things like "the ceramic and fully-automatic models of the universe are both absurd" as though the claim itself settles it.

Alright, let's play this game: you just made a claim that a question exists. Substantiate it. How do you know the question of how life came from nonlife is an applicable question? It seems hilarious to me to even posit such an absurd inquiry. What are you even talking about? Show me this thing you think is not alive and tell me why you think it isn't.

Serendipper wrote: Freewill can only be realized in the context of things that are not free.

And how in a wholly determined universe is anything at all free?

Serendipper wrote: If the universe is wholly determined, how could you possibly be aware of that? Determinism can only be realized in the context of freewill.

That's the imponderable here for many. How can matter evolve into life evolving into consciousness aware of itself as matter evolving into consciousness aware of itself.

Or, for others, one of another rendition of mind/God evolving into matter evolving into consciousness becoming aware of itself as mind evolving into matter evolving into consciousness becoming aware of itself.

Come on, let's face it: If someone were actually able to demonstrate that they grasp the interactions here ontologically [teleologically?] they'd be on every news format around the globe.

Baloney! They'd be ridiculed and ostracized just like every preceding genius.

"EXISTENCE ITSELF EXPLAINED BY CONSCIOUS MIND AND/OR MATTER"

What is mind? It doesn't matter.What is matter? Nevermind.

It occurred to me last night that what you mean by existence of existence itself is the mind of matter. If you investigate matter you'll invariably arrive at mind and if you investigate mind you'll invariably arrive at matter. One doesn't exist without the other.

What is energy? Well, it's moving matter. So, what is matter? Well, it's energy. We can't have one without the other. Mind seems to be the context in which energy expresses itself.

Instead [given my own assumptions] we have mindless matter on earth evolving into mindful matter able to in fact "choose" things that nature compels them to. But: are our choices really any different [for all practical purposes] from the choices made by animals further down the evolutionary chain? They choose almost entirely by "instinct". Our species however has encountered all manner of historical, cultural and experiential variables that come into play. The part where genes intertwine with memes.

How then is this to be understood?

Serendipper wrote: Geese get pissed off, jealous, proud, egotistical, depressed, yet don't have the brains god gave a goose lol. It's possible that plants could experience emotions in ways we don't understand. Heck, it could be possible to piss of the earth. How far do you want to take it? All you are is chemicals; star dust shit.

So, this is either something that you think you know and believe is true "in your head" "here and now", or it is something that you are fully capable of demonstrating that all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

Both.

Define rational men. Is that synonymous with blind men? Anally retentive? Effusive? Who is rational? Who is the judge of that?

That's all we have so far. And that assumes some level of autonomy.

Tell us what you think is true here, sure. By all means. But don't just expect us to accept that you thinking it is true need be as far as one goes.

You see, this is why I say you like your hole. As soon as someone presents a solution, you dismiss it by saying "How could you possibly know?" as if the solution is defined as too complex to know, so you're asking questions which you already have decided can have no answer.

Serendipper wrote: The pertinent question is what can be demonstrated to irrational men and women such that they are obligated to believe it? Rational men and women are not the problem

Or the pertinent question might be that, if rational and irrational beliefs are all subsumed in the fact that beliefs themselves are wholly determined, what does it really mean to make this distinction at all?

Serendipper wrote: If that were the case then you couldn't ask because you couldn't exist as anything more than a dumb machine.

If human brains/minds are just another manifestation of "the laws of matter" we might be thought of as nature's "smart machines". But when we think of ourselves as smart machines inventing "smart phones" we don't think that the phones themselves are calling the shots. Instead, some insist that unlike the phones we do choose consciously to do one thing rather than another. But what if that is all essentially an illusion? What if nature has evolve to the point where matter is able to think that it thinks freely of its own volition but in fact thinks only as it was ever able to think being wholly in sync with the "immutable laws of matter"?

By what mechanism would it do that? You think that simply increasing the processing power of computers that one day computers can make decisions and think for themselves as humans do? So it's a function of complexity? If enough switches are arranged complicated enough then the whole array comes to life? Then why is a worm alive and an iphone not? Theoretically we should be able to situate enough dominoes that the whole assortment comes to life and talks to us, if it were merely an artifact of complexity and determinism.

Has anyone on Earth untangled all of this going back to the understanding of existence itself?

Sure, maybe. And maybe it's you. So, take your assessments here to those who think about these things for a living. See what they say about your own assumptions here. Then get back to us.

Sure, how do I do that?

Serendipper wrote: How does one demonstrate red to a blind man such that he is obligated to believe it?

And this is situated in the either/or world. One is blind or one is not blind. Something is construed as a legitimate demonstration here or it is not. Red might be conveyed to blind person as associated with heat or passion, blue with coolness and calm. The communication is always either more or less effective. But: in a wholly determined universe it is what it is. Period. It could never have been other than that.

Serendipper wrote: Why are you so hungup on pre-determinism? It's contrary to science and contrary to common sense. It could never only have been other than that.

How on earth in a particular context is one to differentiate determinism from pre-determinism? How is this distinction related to the assumption some make that in a determined universe all matter [including mindful matter] interacts only as it was/does/ever will interact.

Pre-determinism means it's possible to predict where a fired electron will land. Determinism means there is a reason (cause) for where it landed, but it's not possible to predict (nonlocal hidden variable). Probabilism means there is no cause (no hidden variables either local or nonlocal) and where electrons land are an artifact of probability.

Going all the way back to the explanation for existence itself.

Serendipper wrote: If you can't see that existence isn't a thing that can exist, then I'm out of ideas of conveyance. I don't know what to do.

This may well be the mother of all "general descriptions" regarding an explanation for existence. How exactly would you go about making a youtube video able to demonstrate that "existence isn't a thing that can exist"?

Illustrate this particular text please.

Positive exist relative to negative, but what would it mean to say positive exists in a world where there is no negative? It's meaningless. So existence is simply the relationship between positive and negative. Positive and negative have to be something that are differentiated from each other first, and then we can recognize existence as a thing next. We can't say positive exists and then negative exists because it's meaningless.

iambiguous wrote:No one forced/compelled you to. Other than the laws of nature compelling others not to compel/force you?

And my internal nature. In other words not just external causes, but also internal ones, but still all utterly predetermined

Your internal nature and the external causes precipitate "choices" that are always necessarily in sync with a reality that could only ever have been. That's why many choose to convey it as "choices" here instead of choices

Yet peacegirl then seems to react with chagrin when one uses the word "fated" instead. Yet if fated is defined as "to be destined to happen, turn out, or act in a particular way," why not use it? All the while acknowledging that we were never really free to not use it. If in fact we do "choose" to use it.

Again, I'm missing something here that she is trying to convey. Something I was never able not to miss given the fact that I do keep missing it.

Glad. But only because she was never able to react in any other manner. Her "choice" to be glad is necessarily subsumed in the reality of nature unfolding only as it must. Given the manner in which I construe the meaning of determinism.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Precisely. In that moment she could not have reacted in another manner. On another day, perhaps she would have been compelled to answer differently.

But only in the sense that on another day the laws of matter would have or will have compelled her to answer differently.

She agrees with all of the points that I make but she still "chooses" to back away from our exchange. And this makes sense to me only to the extent that she seems able to convince herself that I am in fact to blame for not agreeing with her. Really to blame because I should have "chosen" to agree with her.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: That's the only possible interpretation?

Can't one be compelled by unsuccessfuly getting something across, or by it seeming over and over that the other person is not reading carefully - even if they cannot help but do that.

It seems to me you have a go to interpretation. You can't help that. But now when it is pointed out that there might be other possibilities, perhaps you will not have that same reaction, since information might change your mind. we'll see.

But: how are our interpretations -- any and all interpretations -- not in turn inherently/necessarily in sync with the inherent/necessary unfolding of nature's laws?

Same with success and failure. Same with "changing my mind". I will or I won't. But, in a determined universe, it won't be because I freely thought things over again and then freely chose to change my mind.

Or so it still seems to me.

It simply doesn't make any sense to me.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: I would think you can imagine a woman, say, who has had bad experiences with men, interpreting all advances in one way. If she had had a real trauma, or come from a very harsh subculture. She could over time learn that not all men will treat her the way she has been treated.

What does this have to do with her experiences [and her reactions to them] being anything other than what they were always going to be? As though her "learning" is not in just another determined "choice".

That's the part I keep missing. Okay, no one sticks a gun to her head and says, "learn or else". But nature is still there to insist she does what she was always only ever able to do. Her "range of possibilities" is still going to be dictated by the laws of matter.

To wit:

Again, she thinks only that which she was ever able to think here. And in my view she has no way given that assumption to know what on earth the future will bring in the way of peaceful, prosperous and progressive policies here on earth.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: I really do understand the implications of determinism.

Sure, she might be wrong about what is coming. She might be correctly analyzing the trends. I haven't focused on that issue.

What I come away with here is her seeming to suggest that if we want the future to unfold "progressively" we need to read the book she quotes from and agree with her own and the author's rendition of determinism and "choice". All the while seeming to acknowledge that we will or will not actually "choose" to do so in a wholly determined universe.

I still construe blame in her arguments. Not all that far removed -- semantically -- from the sort of blame I get from those who insist I should share their own understanding of God, religion, morality, political values, assessment of nature etc.

In an autonomous world.

On the other hand, I read her stuff and sometimes...sometimes it's like I'm "this close" to "getting it". But it just slips away. It's like my reaction to Einstein's space/time theories. I'm still unable to understand completely what he seems to be conveying about this relationship "for all practical purposes". Like the universe being all there is expanding into...what exactly? If it is all there is what is there to expand into?

It just won't sink in all the way.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

iambiguous wrote:No one forced/compelled you to. Other than the laws of nature compelling others not to compel/force you?

And my internal nature. In other words not just external causes, but also internal ones, but still all utterly predetermined[/quote]

Your internal nature and the external causes precipitate "choices" that are always necessarily in sync with a reality that could only ever have been.

This is one thing that frustrates me. I agree with you and then you tell me basically what I said. I don't see why you couldn't just say 'agreed'. Or perhaps you really don't get that I understood. It ends up feeling like you are just in lecture mode. I must not understand, even though I agreed with you.

That's why many choose to convey it as "choices" here instead of choices

Yet peacegirl then seems to react with chagrin when one uses the word "fated" instead. Yet if fated is defined as "to be destined to happen, turn out, or act in a particular way," why not use it? All the while acknowledging that we were never really free to not use it. If in fact we do "choose" to use it.

The reason not to use fated is because it tends to indicate that you are not part of the causes, that the causes are all external. It is more likely to cause passivity.

Glad. But only because she was never able to react in any other manner. Her "choice" to be glad is necessarily subsumed in the reality of nature unfolding only as it must. Given the manner in which I construe the meaning of determinism.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Precisely. In that moment she could not have reacted in another manner. On another day, perhaps she would have been compelled to answer differently.

But only in the sense that on another day the laws of matter would have or will have compelled her to answer differently.

Of course.

She agrees with all of the points that I make but she still "chooses" to back away from our exchange. And this makes sense to me only to the extent that she seems able to convince herself that I am in fact to blame for not agreeing with her. Really to blame because I should have "chosen" to agree with her.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: That's the only possible interpretation?

Can't one be compelled by unsuccessfuly getting something across, or by it seeming over and over that the other person is not reading carefully - even if they cannot help but do that.

It seems to me you have a go to interpretation. You can't help that. But now when it is pointed out that there might be other possibilities, perhaps you will not have that same reaction, since information might change your mind. we'll see.

But: how are our interpretations -- any and all interpretations -- not in turn inherently/necessarily in sync with the inherent/necessary unfolding of nature's laws?

This isn't answering my question. You had an interpretation. Is that the only possible interpretation?

Same with success and failure. Same with "changing my mind". I will or I won't. But, in a determined universe, it won't be because I freely thought things over again and then freely chose to change my mind.

Agreed. Peacegirl agrees with this.

It simply doesn't make any sense to me.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: I would think you can imagine a woman, say, who has had bad experiences with men, interpreting all advances in one way. If she had had a real trauma, or come from a very harsh subculture. She could over time learn that not all men will treat her the way she has been treated.

What does this have to do with her experiences [and her reactions to them] being anything other than what they were always going to be? As though her "learning" is not in just another determined "choice".

It means that at some point perhaps you will get peacegirls point and despite the causes that previously made you not agree, then agree. One can change due to new causes. This can happen.

When reading your responses to peacegirl it is as it you must always retain the same response to peacegirl. But since his posts are causes, they mind then cause a change in your mind.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: I really do understand the implications of determinism.

Sure, she might be wrong about what is coming. She might be correctly analyzing the trends. I haven't focused on that issue.

What I come away with here is her seeming to suggest that if we want the future to unfold "progressively" we need to read the book she quotes from and agree with her own and the author's rendition of determinism and "choice". All the while seeming to acknowledge that we will or will not actually "choose" to do so in a wholly determined universe.

Well, her suggesting that might be part of the causes that lead to a specific future. From my limited perspective, this might be the case.

I still construe blame in her arguments. Not all that far removed -- semantically -- from the sort of blame I get from those who insist I should share their own understanding of God, religion, morality, political values, assessment of nature etc.

Well, either you will see if there are other possible interpretations or you will hold on to this single one you seem to think is possible. I don't know which will come to pass.

In an autonomous world.

On the other hand, I read her stuff and sometimes...sometimes it's like I'm "this close" to "getting it". But it just slips away. It's like my reaction to Einstein's space/time theories. I'm still unable to understand completely what he seems to be conveying about this relationship "for all practical purposes". Like the universe being all there is expanding into...what exactly? If it is all there is what is there to expand into?

It just won't sink in all the way.

[/quote]Well, that's a generous comparison since, so far, it sure seems like Einstein's theory has been ridiculously well supported by empirical research.

iambiguous wrote:In typing these words [and not others] what is the difference between "I" being embedded in the laws of matter and "I" being "contingent on antecedent events" that are embedded in the laws of matter?

peacegirl wrote: Because your idea of all choices already being "embedded" in the natural unfolding of matter is a fatalistic position that seems to mean you are not making your own choices. It's the difference between: Necessarily, you must choose to eat eggs rather than cereal for breakfast because this has already been predetermined for you (which is a modal fallacy) rather than: You are compelled to CHOOSE (of your own accord or desire) the option that offers you the greater satisfaction at any given moment in time.

If the "antecedent events" embedded in the laws of matter compel me to "choose" eggs instead of cereal, then I construe "I" here as just another one of nature's dominos. And any "idea" I might have about it is no less the only idea I was ever able to have about it.

From my frame of mind you see the "choice" I make here in a different way. It becomes important to you in a way that seems no less fated my me.

As I noted to KT above:...peacegirl...seems to react with chagrin when one uses the word "fated"...Yet if fated is defined as "to be destined to happen, turn out, or act in a particular way," why not use it? All the while acknowledging that we were never really free to not use it. If in fact we do "choose" to use it.

We think about this differently in a way that you may well no doubt insist that we could never have not thought about differently.

iambiguous wrote:If the bottom line is "I could only have thought and felt what I do in choosing to type these words and you could only have thought amd felt what you do in reacting to them", what then is the substance of this distinction?

peacegirl wrote: It's how you are interpreting the meaning of determinism that is causing the issue. You are constantly implying that if determinism is true, you are given no choice. If you contemplated what you are going to do first today, you have already weighed different options. Once you make the choice based on the many pros and cons that all of us use to determine which choice is preferable, it could never have been otherwise. You don't get to omit choice because that would make a mockery out of contemplation.

How then is the way I interpret the meaning of determinism any different from how I think and feel about it: in the only way I was ever able to.

And, no, I do not insist that choice does not exist given my own rendition of determinism. I merely express it as a "choice" given my own understanding of determinism. The autonomous aliens freely choose to note that I am compelled to choose to eat eggs rather than cereal. Choosing exist in both contexts. And yet with all the difference in the world.

peacegirl wrote: We do not have free will in a wholly ordered universe, but that does not mean nature has dictated what you must choose before you choose it.

Well, nature doesn't dictate in the sense that "God's will" might be said to order the universe. But that's just another layer of profound mystery to me. The laws of nature somehow came into existence. And now they unfold as they do only because, well, they are the "laws of nature".

There is no "purpose" or "meaning" behind it. There is simply the brute facticity embedded in existence itself. And, if the human brain/mind is just another manifestation of this brute facticity, it is no less compelled/fated to be in sync with those laws.

Choose not to call this nature's "dictatorship" if you will but that doesn't demonstrate to me how your own frame of mind here is not in turn wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

peacegirl wrote: What we know and what we don't yet know is perfectly ordered. We were never free not to know or to know in a different way because there was no other way it could have been in a wholly determined universe.

iambiguous wrote:My point exactly! If in fact that point is true.

peacegirl wrote: It IS true, so please stop saying IF in fact that point is true. It's just not true the way you describe it. I know for a fact that man's will is not free.

Think about this. You seem exasperated. You are asking me to please stop saying something that I was never able to choose autonomously not to say.

Now, down the road, maybe I will "choose" to not say it. Who among us really knows what nature has in store for us in the future. In fact on the Science Channel last night they were exploring Einstein's and Hawking's contributions in understanding the universe. They were exploring further the possibility that all information -- past, present and future -- is somehow intertwined in the science of black holes. Such that it might even be possible if you had access to all of this information from the past and present to predict precisely what must unfold in the future.

And the human brain/mind precipitating human interactions is not excluded here.

And all of us here would seem to "grasp the implications" of this [and everything else] only because of what was only ever going to be explained to us.

iambiguous wrote:Hitler chose the Final Solution. That is a historical fact. But was this choice a historical fact only because he could never have not chosen it? That of course is what is at stake here. If everything the human brain as mindful matter chooses is always in sync necessarily with the laws of matter, then when folks blame Hitler for acting in an atrociously immoral manner, that too is just an inherent manifestation of a wholly determined universe.

And when some imagine that as having appalling implications for human interactions that too is just more dominoes toppling over as nature marches on.

peacegirl wrote: That doesn't make it any less exciting. Just knowing we are progressing toward a world of peace based on the understanding that man's will is not free, is a wonderful thing to know.

What does this point have to do with the one I made about Hitler? And "knowing" anything at all here is always going to be what we were compelled to know [and not know] intertwined in nature unfolding only as it ever could. How does the CONSENT of the German citizens back then fit into your progressive furture. How does the CONSENT of those who embrace Donald Trump today reconfigure into this peace and prosperity down the road?

What [historically] will ever be other than what it was never able not to be?

peacegirl wrote: I don't like the domino example because we do get to choose (albeit unfreely) dominoes don't.

iambiguous wrote:But how is your not liking this but another "choice" you could never have not made?

peacegirl wrote: My choice to not like this is another choice that "I" could never have not made, but...it was not embedded in a decision that was already made in advance of my making it. Nothing has the power to cause a choice to occur (not the past, not nature, not my parents, not God) without MY CONSENT. It was made by ME based on my analysis of which alternative was the most preferable, in the direction of greater satisfaction.

Again, as though the "analysis" that you "choose" here could ever possibly have been a different analysis. In a determined universe, what seems to be "behind" all of the choices that all of us make is nature. Nature unfolding only as it was ever able to.

And, in this sense, why can't it be argued that nature forced you to choose that which, per nature's laws of matter, was always ever fated to unfold?

iambiguous wrote:Again, with you it is always this precious choice. Something the overwhelming preponderance of mindless matter in the universe does not experience. But from the perspective of the autonomous aliens [and many determinists down here] it's always only really a "choice".

peacegirl wrote: Humans are not mindless matter. They are not just dominoes toppling over. Rocks don't have a choice. Trees don't have a choice. The ability to choose has been given to us because we are able to think through things. Having choice though does not mean we have a FREE choice.

Yes, but the human mind is an evolutionary manifestation of the human brain is an evolutionary manifestation of life on Earth. Some matter evolved into mindless rocks, and other matter evolved into mindful human brains. But all matter is intertwined inherently/necessarily in its laws. Only to the extent that dualism is applicable here might it be argued that mindful matter is qualitatively different from mindless matter. Re either God or some manifestation of nature we are not yet privy to.

iambiguous wrote:And yet somehow in "choosing" to make it more difficult that in turn somehow makes me..."blameworthy"?

peacegirl wrote: No one is blaming you.

On the other hand, if I construe your reaction to me as blame, and I was never able to freely choose not to construe it as something other than blame...what does that mean here? Regarding your point to me and my point to you. Both are the embodiment of a determined universe in which "choosing" is really just the psychological equivalent [the illusion] of actually choosing freely to feel blamed or not blamed.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

promethean75 wrote:what we are now experiencing is a derridaian state of the aporetic, an impasse generated from an unusual bewitchment of language... when language is forced out of its ordinary environment into the philosophical landscape. chances are, all of you are meaning the same thing... but using the signifiers (words) differently. i think we should take a break from this discussion for a while, collect our marbles, and come back to it later, refreshed and renewed, ready to enter again into the same linguistic entanglements.....

This is probably true. But how on earth would someone [philosopher or not] go about demonstrating that it is.

I found this a fascinating exhange. I would guess that if I said something as abstract with a number of philosophical terms in it as promethean did, I would be told it was just abstract babbling. But here, since it matches - or seems to if it is correct - Iamb's positions, he says it is probably correct, no criticism of the widely sprayed vaguenesses. Saying something is probably correct has as much a burden of proof as saying something is correct. More than 50% less than 100%. Interesting.

Then we get to Iamb's question: how does a philosopher go about demonstrating this. Well, likely the same way both of you reached the conclusion. Would it work on all people? No. But then nothing does.

And then we get to Iamb in a burst of metaphysical confidence.....

Clearly, there are things we experience from day to day. There are things encountered by our senses. There are things we think we understand cognitively, intellectually.

The first two sentences contain a lot of metaphysical assumptions, contested ones, some implicit in the grammar. But when speaking to a like mind, he can just go ahead and state it as clear.

Yet in the context of....

As though infinitesimally tiny specks of existence like you and I can actually assert things like this as anything other than intellectual gibberish.

How can he be so clear on this? How can he be clear that our volume means that we cannot know things? All his doubt and confusion is generated by arguments based on his knowledge. He wil build up arguments based on X and Y and Z....and more? only to say that since we are specks we cannot know? Why mount an argument? Since all the pieces of the argument show the same hubris?

Why not simply be unconvinced?

Once you try to demostrate that we are mere infinitesmal specks, based on what he thinks are clearly metaphysical truths, you are building an argument on poison fruit.

And so repeating that we are small and so therefore stupid or confused - states, it would seem, larger organisms would not suffer - and telling other people that....

Is that how one ought to live?

Ought one tell other people that they are really tiny and can't really know or communicate things such as those communicated in these threads a good thing to do, if one thinks one cannot know such things? Why would one bother?

It would seem like caution would say: I have no idea if my metaphysical ideas are correct. I have no ideas if what promethean said is probably true. I have no idea if my skepticism and confusion are good things to try to spread. Perhaps I will do something else until I do know.

But without knowing if it is how one ought to live, he chooses to take action - or is compelled, but continues when this is pointed out. He tries to convince others. Why does he need to know how one ought to live, when he decides to influence others and convince them that they really don't know certain things despite having no idea if this is how one ought to live.

What's actually happening here?

And I really don't know.

Yawn.

Once again another smartass attack in which the whole point here is to make me the issue.

But, with any luck, there was never any possibility that KT could have posted anything other than this in a wholly determined universe.

The crucial point being the limitation of language [derridaian or otherwise] as it pertains to the choices that we make in either a wholly determined universe or in one in which human autonomy does in some measure exist.

Let him pick a particular context and we can explore the existential parameters of, among other things, the relationship between words and worlds as this might be applicable to conflicting goods and/or the matter of choice itself in world in which the presumption is either human freedom or the lack thereof.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Tell that to the Universe.. everything that happens within it's confines is objective, so objectivity does exist, but just not within the confines of our world and our lives.

Now.. I cannot prove that, but on another note.. there are instances when objective reality can happen i.e. when everyone is on the same page.. objective reality is being here, but then that breaks down into our individual outlook of subjectivity.

The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

Once again another smartass attack in which the whole point here is to make me the issue.

But individual humans are the issue. A very large percentage of your posts have you, your history of political positions, the fact that you, as an individual do not know, how this contrasts with objectivists - and you label them as objectivists, making them at least part of the issue.

The entire drive of your participation has to do with you as an individual, a specific one with a specific history and how ideas do and do not affect you. That is the core of your participation here and is combined in various ways with dasein, conflicting goods, how you interpret, you are unsure, etc.

Which fits nicely with my interests, because that is precisely the level I am interested in philosophy. What happens when we have certain memes in our minds? What are these memes doing in individual minds?

I am interested in other things also, but it seems rather disingenous to dismiss my response because it makes you the issue, when your posts come out of you very specifically as part of the content with you as the issue, and further that you label other people and focus yourself on the dynamics with you - for example the whole peacegirl is blaming me, this still feels like blame issue, thing. That is you focusing on peacegirl and the interpersonal relatoin with you in a thread. That is all about making you, him and the relation the issue. Similar things happen with objectivists.

And I note that I raised a issue about your certainty - seen via the word 'clearly' - which you could simply have answered. Why are you clear about that and not about other things? You could have answered that question, but you didn't.

The crucial point being the limitation of language [derridaian or otherwise] as it pertains to the choices that we make in either a wholly determined universe or in one in which human autonomy does in some measure exist.

That's 'the crucial point´. It might be crucial for you. Again you seem certain of something.

Let him pick a particular context and we can explore the existential parameters of, among other things, the relationship between words and worlds as this might be applicable to conflicting goods

This thread isn't about conflicting goods, so I am not sure where that came from.

and/or the matter of choice itself in world in which the presumption is either human freedom or the lack thereof.

I actually don't think it matters. I understand that it sounds terrible or at least can if everything is determined (or if there is quantum indeterminism which also does not lead to freedom) but it doesn't seem to matter at all to me. How does this affect my next day? My next second? I black box it. I remain unconvinced that I must decide dterminism is the case or decide that free will is the case or that I must be in pain about it. If there is an argument someone has as to why I should do one of these things, that it is good to do so, let me know. I do not mean - demonstrate that free will or determinism is the case. Rather that it is important I decide and commit myself to one of those or to suffering not knowing.

iambiguous wrote:Again, let's bring this all down to earth. What might be the bush there and what might beating around it consist of?

This is the bush:

IB: Note to others: What does this tell you about him? And he's done it before. He jumps into a thread, "sets me straight", and then abandons the discussion.SD: We were discussing earlier what obligations one has to discussions. How do you see it?

Yes, but it is a "bush" that is clearly open to conflicting points of view. I see the point here [a point to either beat or not beat around] one way and he sees it another. I construe our obligations as revolving only around the assumptions that I make regarding this point; and he in his own conflcting ways.

Serendipper wrote: And here is the beating:

IB: Again, on this thread, it's not how I see it, but whether the manner in which I think I see it [here and now] is but an inherent, necessary manifestation of the laws of nature unfolding only as they ever could have.SD: Well, assume it's not determined and working within that context, how would you see it?IB: What I assume in a world where we do have some measure of autonomy, is that "I" is embedded in the laws of nature in the either/or world. Here there are objective truths seemingly applicable to all of us. However, in the is/ought world of conflicting goods, "I" is still no less an "existential contraption". At least at the intersection of identity, value judgments and political power. Obligations here are predicated on any particular objective context construed from any particular subjective/subjunctive point of view.SD: Right, but notwithstanding yet more beating around the bush, what is your subjective point of view concerning the obligations one has to a game he/she started?IB: What does it mean to "beat around the bush" with regard to questions this problematic?SD: All that word salad in avoidance of the question is what it means.IB: [more word salad to avoid answering question]

Nothing really changes. My reaction to KT is a value judgment. I make the assumption that he is reacting to me in a certain way. And I disagree with his assessment of me. Now, "beating around the bush" here would seem to be moot if, in a wholly determined unverse, KT and I were never able to freely choose to post anything other than what our brains propel/compel us to post in order to be in sync with the laws of matter.

And, in an autonomous world, I am never really able to demonstrate that my assumptions about him [or his assumptions about me] reflect that which all rational men and women are obligated to share.

Yes, and in a wholly determined universe all of these interactions unfold only as they ever could have. If time could be unwound hypothetically the same things would unfold over and over again. An "eternal recurrence" as it were.

Serendipper wrote: But that view has been disproven by scientific experimentation so exhaustively that it is the most substantiated point in all of science, yet you continue on and on and on, for months now, in stern refusal to recognize that. Rewind the universe and there is almost zero chance it could recur the same.

Link me to sites on the internet where it has been demonstrated that, if time could be rewound in a determined universe, events would not unfold over and again only as they ever could have. Hell, there are even astrophysicists who argue that all events [past present and future] already exist in some extraordinary way in which one is able to grasp space/time.

...given human autonomy, beating around the bush regarding any particular set of conflicting goods in the is/ought world, can be explored in turn from conflicting moral and political perspectives.

People are said to be beating around the bush given conflicting assumptions regarding what that means in any particular context. Re abortion "the point" is said to be either the alleged "natural right" of the fetus to be born vs. the alleged "political right" of a women to chose abortion.

So, who exactly is beating around the bush here in arguing for or against the abortion of a particular unborn baby?

Serendipper wrote:The woman has a natural right to choose abortion too. She could do it consciously or unconsciously, and both processes originate from the same cause.

How on earth would you/could you demonstrate that women have an inherent, necessary, natural right to kill their unborn babies? How can we even pin down precisely when the "unborn" becomes a bonafide "human being"?

Other than in assuming that what is "natural" here is that whatever the woman chooses it is the only thing that she was ever able to choose in a determined universe. In a world governed entirely by the laws of matter nothing can be said to be unnatural. Right?

Serendipper wrote: How can you not know it?? If atoms are nonlife and you're made of nonlife, then you are nonlife... unless the pixie sprinkled some magic dust making you alive.

You just claim to know it. But how on earth would you actually demonstrate it such that neuroscientists, physicists, biologists etc., all concur that your own take on these relationships reflects the whole truth? Let alone how this assessment is "for all practical purposes" relevant in grasping why we choose the behaviors that we do from day to day in a universe that may or may not be wholly determined.

You claim things like "the ceramic and fully-automatic models of the universe are both absurd" as though the claim itself settles it.

Serendipper wrote: Alright, let's play this game: you just made a claim that a question exists. Substantiate it. How do you know the question of how life came from nonlife is an applicable question? It seems hilarious to me to even posit such an absurd inquiry. What are you even talking about? Show me this thing you think is not alive and tell me why you think it isn't.

Right from the start I flat out acknowledge there are any number of claims I make, I am unable to demonstrate. I certainly cannot demonstrate how [or why] non-life matter evolved into living matter. Or if ultimately they are actually two very different things. I can only note that here and now in this particular world they exist side by side. And that determinism is one possible explanation for that.

Come on, let's face it: If someone were actually able to demonstrate that they grasp the interactions here ontologically [teleologically?] they'd be on every news format around the globe.

Serendipper wrote: Baloney! They'd be ridiculed and ostracized just like every preceding genius.

Who is ridiculing and ostracizing folks like Newton and Einstein now?

Just try to imagine if someone actually could demonstrate once and for all -- scientifically, empirically, phenomenologically, experientially etc. -- if they either were or were not able to freely, autonomously accomplish this.

"EXISTENCE ITSELF EXPLAINED BY CONSCIOUS MIND AND/OR MATTER"

Serendipper wrote: What is mind? It doesn't matter.What is matter? Nevermind.

That's the point. We say things like this because we really don't fully comprehend where one stops and the other begins. It's not for nothing that some have speculated that human consciousness may well be the biggest mystery of them all.

Serendipper wrote: It occurred to me last night that what you mean by existence of existence itself is the mind of matter. If you investigate matter you'll invariably arrive at mind and if you investigate mind you'll invariably arrive at matter. One doesn't exist without the other.

Why? And how is this able to be explained going all the way back to the explanation for existence itself.

Tell us what you think is true here, sure. By all means. But don't just expect us to accept that you thinking it is true need be as far as one goes.

Serendipper wrote: You see, this is why I say you like your hole. As soon as someone presents a solution, you dismiss it by saying "How could you possibly know?" as if the solution is defined as too complex to know, so you're asking questions which you already have decided can have no answer.

What's this point really have to do with mine? Everything that you argue here you are either able to demonstrate as true for all of us or not.

The "solution" to what? What context? What conflicting points of view?

And my hole is completely irrelevant regarding those contexts and points of view that can be grasped objectively by all of us.

Look at all of the solutions that revolve around our capacity to invent technology, to solve engineering problems, to interact from day to day in any number of contexts in which we can all agree on what is true and what is false.

Instead, my "hole" revolves around the assumption that human autonomy does exist in some measure when we confront conflicting goods. And that for "I" death equals oblivion.

For you to say that, in this regard, I like my hole, is simply preposterous. You know, from my point of view.

If human brains/minds are just another manifestation of "the laws of matter" we might be thought of as nature's "smart machines". But when we think of ourselves as smart machines inventing "smart phones" we don't think that the phones themselves are calling the shots. Instead, some insist that unlike the phones we do choose consciously to do one thing rather than another. But what if that is all essentially an illusion? What if nature has evolved to the point where matter is able to think that it thinks freely of its own volition but in fact thinks only as it was ever able to think being wholly in sync with the "immutable laws of matter"?

Serendipper wrote: By what mechanism would it do that?

You're asking me? Some of the greatest minds on the planet are grappling with this day in and day out. And without a definitive answer having been discovered. Or none that I am aware of.

Serendipper wrote: You think that simply increasing the processing power of computers that one day computers can make decisions and think for themselves as humans do? So it's a function of complexity? If enough switches are arranged complicated enough then the whole array comes to life? Then why is a worm alive and an iphone not? Theoretically we should be able to situate enough dominoes that the whole assortment comes to life and talks to us, if it were merely an artifact of complexity and determinism.

Again, I really don't grasp what this point has to do with mine. Either nature and it's immutable laws are behind all of this or there is some way in which the human brain is able transact relationships in the world with some measure of free will.

Has anyone on Earth untangled all of this going back to the understanding of existence itself?

Sure, maybe. And maybe it's you. So, take your assessments here to those who think about these things for a living. See what they say about your own assumptions here. Then get back to us.

Serendipper wrote: Sure, how do I do that?

Well, you can go into communities on line that delve into mind and matter in a systemic, scientific, experiential manner. Communities of physicists, neurologists, biologists, neuroscientists, chemists etc..

Communities that have forums.

You make your points and observations and they respond. You bring their reactions back to us.

How on earth in a particular context is one to differentiate determinism from pre-determinism? How is this distinction related to the assumption some make that in a determined universe all matter [including mindful matter] interacts only as it was/does/ever will interact.

Serendipper wrote: Pre-determinism means it's possible to predict where a fired electron will land. Determinism means there is a reason (cause) for where it landed, but it's not possible to predict (nonlocal hidden variable). Probabilism means there is no cause (no hidden variables either local or nonlocal) and where electrons land are an artifact of probability.

But are not predeterminism and determinism here necessarily embedded/intertwined in what can only ever unfold in a universe that is wholly ordered by the laws of nature?

And in what the particular context involving the choices that we make in the course of actually living our lives from day to day?

Serendipper wrote: If you can't see that existence isn't a thing that can exist, then I'm out of ideas of conveyance. I don't know what to do.

This may well be the mother of all "general descriptions" regarding an explanation for existence. How exactly would you go about making a youtube video able to demonstrate that "existence isn't a thing that can exist"?

Illustrate this particular text please.

Serendipper wrote: Positive exist relative to negative, but what would it mean to say positive exists in a world where there is no negative? It's meaningless. So existence is simply the relationship between positive and negative. Positive and negative have to be something that are differentiated from each other first, and then we can recognize existence as a thing next. We can't say positive exists and then negative exists because it's meaningless.

Okay, you could say this on a youtube video. But what about the part where you then illustrate it?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Yes, please attack the argument and not the arguee.. let's keep the discussion moving forward and not stagnate on matters of the other.. even if Iambig is an interesting specimen to dissect for most here.

Waiting for Serendipper's reply to my last..

The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

MagsJ wrote:Yes, please attack the argument and not the arguee.. let's keep the discussion moving forward and not stagnate on matters of the other.. even if Iambig is an interesting specimen to dissect for most here.

Good job moderating (mediating, cooling) by a moderate (cool) moderator

Of course, there is no reason that any ordinary citizen couldn't have said that

I don't mind playing by rules so long as everyone plays by them. But when I suffer veiled attacks and feel like I can't retaliate, then I feel I'm disarmed, the cops won't defend me, and if I do defend myself, then I get in trouble. You see?

Waiting for Serendipper's reply to my last..

I'll start a thread about objectivity since there is a lot of information in the Turd thread I need to consolidate. I just posted that link mainly for biggie's benefit stemming from a conversation in that thread. The short answer is objectivity has no observer. What reality is depends just as much on how the subject is put together as it does on how the object is put together, so there is no objective way of viewing anything and every reality is subjective.